W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

RE: [WRLD] Some few questions about the formal description of the TF

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:03:28 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808028A2715@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of NANNI 
> Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:43 AM
> To: Jim Hendler
> Cc: SWBPD
> Subject: [WRLD] Some few questions about the formal 
> description of the TF

[...]

> So, for me the most important thing we have to do is to 
> convince the reader that OWL is a good language and that he 
> migth uses it as much as possible. Obviously the 
> demonstration will based on some comparisons betwen the 
> languages but always, in my mind, according to the fact that 
> OWL is the most powerful one.

At breakfast this morning, I used a chain saw to take the top off my boiled
egg, as it was the most powerful tool I had available.  Shame I didn't have
one of those loud pneumatic road digger thingies :)

Seriously, though, the point I want to make is that there is a notion of
appropriateness of a tool to a task.  It may be that there are no tasks for
which RDFS is more appropriate that Owl, but perhaps that is something to
examine rather than assume.

Brian
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 10:15:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC